#12 - The five senses have traditionally been viewed as

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)

The conclusion is in the last sentence, that some people “have senses that do not respect the usual
boundaries between the five recognized senses.” Instead of keeping their senses distinct, these
individuals have an overlap.

Incidentally, the condition discussed in the stimulus is not made up: synesthesiacs (or synesthetes)
have a real condition known as synesthesia. Regardless of that fact, you must find an answer choice
that undermines the conclusion of the argument, something that would suggest their senses do
respect the usual boundaries.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. If the synesthesiacs have a systematic impairment
in their use of language it may not be that their senses overlap but rather that they lack the ability
to properly express themselves. Thus, their claim to taste a banana and taste blue might not be a
reflection of that actually occurring but rather a reflection of the words they use to describe taste.
If so, this would undermine the conclusion that the senses of synesthesiacs do overlap. This is a
difficult answer to identify as correct, and less than 50% of test takers are able to do so.

Answer choice (B): The appeal of this answer—and many students keep this as a Contender—is that
it suggests that perhaps other senses are operating, and some test takers make the judgment that these
additional senses account for the sensory overlap in synesthesiacs. Unfortunately, that judgment is
not supported by the answer choice. Not enough information is provided by the answer choice to say
what role, if any, is played by these other senses.

Answer choice (C): This is the most popular wrong answer choice. Do not forget to personalize
the argument and consider how the author would react if faced with this answer. Would he or she
surrender and admit the answer overpowers the argument? Doubtful. The author would probably
react to this answer by saying something along these lines, “Exactly. Since all the individuals are
synesthesiacs and suffer from the same condition, it is not surprising that there would be patterns in
the way the senses overlap. Just as everyone afflicted with emphysema has difficulty breathing, the
sensory patterns exhibited by synesthesiacs are just a product of the condition. The fact that their
senses do not follow the usual boundaries and do so in certain ways is to be expected.” So, instead of
surrendering to the answer, the author would indicate that the answer agrees with the conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This answer is out of the scope of the argument. The “legendary” status of
synesthesiacs does not shed any light on the operation of their five senses.

Answer choice (E): If anything, this may strengthen the argument by indicating that the
synesthesiacs are experiencing some type of phenomenon. Beyond that point, however, no
information is given to suggest that their senses respect the usual boundaries.

[GLMDYP]

The five senses have traditionally been viewed as distinct yet complementary...[Question content removed by Admin. LSAC rules unfortunately do not allow the posting of the text of complete LSAT questions. But, if you give us the test date or PrepTest number, the section, and the question number (which I put into the question title), we can find it easily and still answer the question. Thanks!]


The right answer is (A), but I don't understand why (A) is right. Is it because it demonstrates that there are other possibilities?
Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi GLMDYP,

Thanks for the question. Don't worry about the Admin notice--we simply have to follow their rules when it comes to having complete LSAT questions posted (in short, they can't be posted ). But, you'll see that every one of the questions you submitted was altered, and that is why. In the future, just post the test location info, and we can track it down.

Regardless, you've run across one of the more interesting LSAT questions out there. First, the topic itself is unusual, but it is based on reality--synesthesiacs actually do exist! That said, let's break down the stimulus in the typical PowerScore fashion:

• Premises: The five sense have always been thought to be distinct from the other senses, but it turns out researchers have uncovered these synesthesiacs.
  
  Conclusion: On that basis, the author concludes that these synesthesiacs apparently have senses that don't respect the usual boundaries.

The question stem is a Weaken, so we want to weaken the idea that these people have senses that do not work properly.

Answer choice (A) successfully achieves this by introducing the possibility that perhaps there's nothing wrong with their senses, but rather that how they label the results when talking is messed up. For example, in (A), someone would eat a banana, taste a banana, but instead of saying "it's a banana!," because of their impairment they would say it tastes "blue." So, their sense aren't messed up; the way they label things is messed up.

(A) is not an easy answer to identify, and only about 54% of test takers get this one right.

Please let me know if that answers your question. Thanks and welcome to the forum!

[GLMDYP]

Thank you! It's great to see you on the forum!! Yes, the staffs of Powerscore are awesome and very helpful! Thanks again for inviting me to this place!!

[cindyhylee87]

Hi,

Just a follow-up with this question.

When I read this problem, I did a totally different prephrase. My prephrase: the author thinks that those synesthesiacs have their problems due to the fact that their senses do not respect the usual boundaries, the correct answer will the the one which states that senses do not respect the usual boundaries is not the cause of synesthesia.

And I could not find a correct answer following by my own prephrase.

Thanks,
Cindy

[Adam Tyson]

That's an interesting prephrase, Cindy, but I'm not sure it really addresses the core issue in the argument. The label "synesthesiac" is simply descriptive - it's what we call the people who claim to have these senses that go beyond the normal boundaries. The author has defined a synesthesiac as someone whose senses do that, so looking for an alternate cause for their synesthesia is essentially redefining what that is. That's not our goal here.

Instead, focus on the conclusion - these folks, whatever you want to call them, have senses that go beyond/do not stay within normal boundaries. To weaken that we only want to suggest that they may indeed stay within boundaries. Either tasting blue and smelling a color are still within the normal bounds or, as answer A suggests, they may not actually be doing those unusual things. My prephrase was a little more blunt: those people are full of...let's say baloney.

Let me know if that smells right to you!

[Lily123]

Instead, focus on the conclusion - these folks, whatever you want to call them, have senses that go beyond/do not stay within normal boundaries. To weaken that we only want to suggest that they may indeed stay within boundaries.

My prephrase was pretty much in line with what you’re saying here but I got the answer wrong & picked E. I understand why A is correct. Can someone please explain why E is wrong? This was my thought process:

I was looking for an answer choice that suggested synesthesiacs MAY have senses that stay within the usual boundaries. I thought (E) did this by saying their synesthetic experiences are due to a condition that does not allow the usual sensory boundaries to be be obeyed. If they’re ABLE to experience senses just like everyone else with the use of drugs, then it COULD be the case that there’s nothing wrong with their sensory boundaries & there’s another mechanism at play (some condition) that makes it SEEM like there is (I guess this is similar to what A is saying but my thought process never got that specific). Is this line of reasoning wrong because the conclusion isn’t about whether their senses are ABLE to respect the normal boundaries?

Since the stimulus said “each sense is thought to have its own range of stimuli that are incapable of stimulating the other senses”; I took ‘not respecting the usual boundaries’ to mean their senses ARE capable of being stimulated by stimuli outside of their typical range... I realize as I’m writing this that if this were the case, then the ability of drugs to suspend synesthethia would actually strengthen the argument because those drugs would most likely be receptor blockers (therefore confirming that their senses have additional receptors as opposed to just the usual ones, which is another way of saying they don’t respect the usual boundaries).

I think I just answered my own question. I’m going to post anyways - can someone please tell me if I’m completely out to lunch? Is there a different way that (E) can be eliminated without going into all that?

[Lily123]

Does "This shows that..." in the conclusion indicate this is a causal argument?

Synesthethia is caused by senses that don't respect the usual boundaries

[Adam Tyson]

As to answer E, lily, since the argument is saying that these folks have senses that do NOT obey the normal bounds, we want an answer that suggests that maybe they DO obey those bounds. Answer E only tells us that in some situations their senses can be FORCED into obeying those bounds, and tells us nothing about what they do normally. Our conclusion about what their senses normally do isn't weakened just because we can sometimes suppress those senses.

If we were to treat this one causally, it would have nothing to do with what causes synesthesia. Instead, we would be looking for whether special sensory abilities are causing those odd responses, or whether something else is causing them. Synesthesia could be caused by something genetic, or by diet, or by drugs, etc., and none of that matters. What matters is why these folks are talking about tasting blue and smelling colors!

[Loyd_Xmas]

I struggled with this incorrect answer for a very long time and finally realized that it is incorrect because it uses the word "can" instead of "do". Just because they can do something does not necessarily mean that they do anything.